Search for: All records

Abstract We ask how environmental justice and urban ecology have influenced one another over the past 25 years in the context of the US Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program and Baltimore Ecosystem Study (BES) project. BES began after environmental justice emerged through activism and scholarship in the 1980s but spans a period of increasing awareness among ecologists and environmental practitioners. The work in Baltimore provides a detailed example of how ecological research has been affected by a growing understanding of environmental justice. The shift shows how unjust environmental outcomes emerge and are reinforced over time by systemic discrimination and exclusion. We do not comprehensively review the literature on environmental justice in urban ecology but do present four brief cases from the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia, to illustrate the global relevance of the topic. The example cases demonstrate the necessity for continuous engagement with communities in addressing environmental problem solving. 

This paper builds on the expansion of urban ecology from a biologically based discipline—ecologyinthe city—to an increasingly interdisciplinary field—ecologyofthe city—to a transdisciplinary, knowledge to action endeavor—an ecologyforandwiththe city. We build on this “prepositional journey” by proposing a transformative shift in urban ecology, and we present a framework for how the field may continue this shift. We conceptualize that urban ecology is in a state of flux, and that this shift is needed to transform urban ecology into a more engaged and action based field, and one that includes a diversity of actors willing to participate in the future of their cities. In this transformative shift, these actors will engage, collaborate, and participate in a continuous spiral of knowledge → action → knowledge spiral and back to knowledge loop, with the goal of co producing sustainable and resilient solutions to myriad urban challenges. Our framework for this transformative shift includes three pathways: (1) a repeating knowledge → action → knowledge spiral of ideas, information, and solutions produced by a diverse community of agents of urban change working together in an “urban sandbox”; (2) incorporation of a social–ecological–technological systems framework in this spiral and expanding the spiral temporally to include the “deep future,” where future scenarios are based on a visioning of seemingly unimaginable or plausible future states of cities that are sustainable and resilient; and (3) the expansion of the spiral in space, to include rural areas and places that are not yet cities. The three interrelated pathways that define the transformative shift demonstrate the power of an urban ecology that has moved beyond urban systems science and into a realm where collaborations among diverse knowledges and voices are working together to understand cities and what is urban while producing sustainable solutions to contemporary challenges and envisioning futures of socially, ecologically, and technologically resilient cities. We present case study examples of each of the three pathways that make up this transformative shift in urban ecology and discuss both limitations and opportunities for future research and action with this transdisciplinary broadening of the field. 

Abstract This perspective emerged from ongoing dialogue among ecologists initiated by a virtual workshop in 2021. A transdisciplinary group of researchers and practitioners conclude that urban ecology as a science can better contribute to positive futures by focusing on relationships, rather than prioritizing urban structures. Insights from other relational disciplines, such as political ecology, governance, urban design, and conservation also contribute. Relationality is especially powerful given the need to rapidly adapt to the changing social and biophysical drivers of global urban systems. These unprecedented dynamics are better understood through a relational lens than traditional structural questions. We use three kinds of coproduction—of the social-ecological world, of science, and of actionable knowledge—to identify key processes of coproduction within urban places. Connectivity is crucial to relational urban ecology. Eight themes emerge from the joint explorations of the paper and point toward social action for improving life and environment in urban futures. 

This is a subset of the data found in Grove and Locke (2018), to be included with: Locke, D.H., Polsky, C., Grove, J. M., Groffman, P. M., Nelson, K.C., Larson, K. L., Cavender-Bares, J., Heffernan, J. B., Roy Chowdhury, R., Hobbie, S. E., Bettez, N., Neill, C., Ogden, L.A., O’Neil-Dunne, J. P. M.. [accepted]. Heterogeneity of practice underlies the homogeneity of ecological outcomes of United States yard care in metropolitan regions, neighborhoods and households. PLoS ONE doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0222630 These data contain answers 2011 survey questions: In the past year, which of the following has been applied to any part of your yard: Water for irrigating grass, plants, or trees? Fertilizers? Pesticides to get rid of weeds or pests? The total household annual income (8 ordinal categories), age of respondent (5 ordinal categories), and the answer to: About how many neighbors do you know by name? (recorded in 5 ordinal categories). Two additional columns are provided to indicate the metropolitan region of the respondent (one of the following six: Phoenix, Los Angeles, Minneapolis - St. Paul, Baltimore, Boston, or Miami) and the degree of urbanicity in that region (Urban, Suburban, or Exurban). See Grove and Locke 2018 for additional details. This research is supported by the Macro- Systems Biology Program (US NSF) under Grants EF-1065548, -1065737, -1065740, -1065741, -1065772, -1065785, -1065831, and -121238320 and the NIFA McIntire-Stennis 1000343 MIN-42-051. The work arose from research funded by grants from the NSF LTER program for Baltimore (DEB- 0423476, DEB-1027188); Phoenix (BCS-1026865, DEB-0423704, DEB-9714833, DEB-1637590, DEB-1832016); Plum Island, Boston (OCE-1058747 and 1238212); Cedar Creek, Minneapolis–St. Paul (DEB- 0620652); and Florida Coastal Everglades, Miami (DBI-0620409). Edna Bailey Sussman Foundation, Libby Fund Enhancement Award and the Marion I. Wright ‘46 Travel Grant at Clark University, The Warnock Foundation, the USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, Baltimore and Philadelphia Field Stations, and the DC-BC ULTRA-Ex NSF-DEB-0948947 also provided support. This work was supported by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under funding received from the National Science Foundation DBI-1052875. Anonymous reviewers supplied constructive feedback that helped to improve this paper. The findings and opinions reported here do not necessarily reflect those of the funders of this research. Citations: Grove J.M., Locke, D.H.. (2018). BES Household Telephone Survey. Environmental Data Initiative. https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/5a4fc7bfa199f3d63748f0853ae073a0.